Family caregivers' responses to a visitation restriction policy at a Korean surgical intensive care unit before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, restricting family visits in the ICU has increased concerns regarding negative psychosocial consequences to patients and families. OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of life, depressive symptoms, and emotions in family caregivers of ICU patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore families' perceptions and suggestions for the visitation. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted in 99 family caregivers of adult surgical ICU patients from an urban academic medical center in South Korea (February to July 2021). The WHO's Quality of Life-BREF, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression, and Visual Analogue Scale were used to assess quality of life, depressive symptoms, and emotions, respectively. The Family Perception Checklist was used to assess families' perceptions and suggestions about the visitation restriction. Results were compared with the data from our previous survey (n = 187) in 2017. RESULTS: Family caregivers were mostly women (n = 59), adult children (n = 43) or spouse (n = 38) of patients with mean age of 47.34 years. Family caregivers surveyed during the pandemic reported worsening sadness (54.66 ± 28.93, 45.58 ± 29.44, P = 0.005) and anxiety (53.86 ± 30.07, 43.22 ± 29.02, P = 0.001) than those who were surveyed in. While majority of families were satisfied with the visitation restrictions (86.9%), only 50.5% were satisfied with the amount of information provided on the patient's condition. CONCLUSIONS: Visitation restriction is necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic despite sadness and anxiety reported in caregivers. Hence, alternative visitation strategies are needed to mitigate psychological distress and provide sufficient information to ICU family caregivers.

Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on intraocular pressure and optic nerve sheath diameter in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A randomized, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been no study of the effect of post end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on intraocular or intracranial pressure during pneumoperitoneum with steep Trendelenburg positioning. We investigated the effects of 5 cmH2O of PEEP on intraocular pressure and optic nerve sheath diameter as a surrogate for intracranial pressure in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Fifty patients scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were divided into a zero-PEEP (ZEEP) group and a 5 cmH2O of PEEP (PEEP) group. Intraocular pressure, optic nerve sheath diameter, and respiratory and hemodynamic parameters were measured before induction (T0), 10 minutes after induction of general anesthesia in the supine position before CO2 insufflation (T1), 5 minutes (T2), and 30 minutes (T3) after steep Trendelenburg positioning with pneumoperitoneum, after desufflation of pneumoperitoneum in the supine position (T4), and after 30 minutes in the recovery room postoperatively (T5). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in intraocular pressure or optic nerve sheath diameter between the groups during the study. The partial pressure of arterial oxygen and dynamic lung compliance at T1, T2, T3, and T4 were significantly higher in the PEEP than in the ZEEP group. There was no difference in mean arterial pressure or heart rate between groups at any time. CONCLUSION: Applying 5 cmH2O of PEEP did not increase intraocular pressure or optic nerve sheath diameter during pneumoperitoneum with steep Trendelenburg positioning in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. These results suggest that low PEEP can be safely applied during surgery with pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg positioning in patients without preexisting eye disease and brain pathology.

Effect of remifentanil and midazolam on ED95 of propofol for loss of consciousness in elderly patients: A randomized, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Older people are more vulnerable to hemodynamic instability caused by propofol due to their decreased initial distribution volume and increased sensitivity to propofol. Midazolam or remifentanil can often be coadministered because of their synergistic or additive effects with propofol as well as amnesic properties and the blockade of sympathetic stimulation. However, no study has confirmed the appropriate dose of propofol for loss of consciousness in aged patients when administered with other drugs, including opioids or benzodiazepines. METHODS: Patients >65 years scheduled for general anesthesia were enrolled. The patients were randomized into 3 groups using a computer-generated randomization table. Patients in group P (propofol) received only propofol for loss of consciousness, those in group PR (propofol-remifentanil) received remifentanil before propofol, and those in group PMR (propofol-midazolam-remifentanil) received remifentanil and midazolam before propofol. After propofol administration, loss of both eyelash reflex and verbal response represented success. The 95% effective dose of propofol for loss of consciousness in each group, which was the primary outcome, was determined using a modified biased coin up-and-down method. RESULTS: In total, 120 patients were randomized into the 3 groups (n = 40). The 95% effective dose of propofol for loss of consciousness was 1.13, 0.87, and 0.72 mg/kg in groups P, PR, and PMR, respectively. The mean blood pressure (MBP) in group PMR was more significantly decreased before propofol injection (P = .041) as well as 2 minutes (P = .005) and 3 minutes after propofol administration (P<.001), compared with group P, but there were no intergroup differences at other time points. CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose of propofol for loss of consciousness in elderly patients could be decreased by 23% and 36% when remifentanil pretreatment was used without and with midazolam, respectively. However, the decrease in MBP was greater with remifentanil and midazolam pretreatment than with propofol alone. These findings suggest that pretreatment with midazolam for propofol infusions with remifentanil in elderly patients should be cautiously used, due to hemodynamic instability during induction.

The Influence of Local Anesthesia Depth on Procedural Pain During Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Injections: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of the depth of local anesthesia application on procedural pain during lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection. DESIGN: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled who were scheduled for single-level, unilateral fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either subcutaneous local anesthesia (group S) or deep local anesthesia (group D) for transforaminal epidural steroid injection. The data related to pain and technical performance during the procedure was compared. In addition, the incidence of injection site soreness was assessed 2 wks after transforaminal epidural steroid injection. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients completed all assessments (group S, n = 33; group D, n = 34). There was no significant difference in procedural pain and discomfort level between the groups (P = 0.151, P = 0.183, respectively). Patients in group D showed lower behavioral pain scores (P = 0.017). There was no significant difference in the numbers of needle manipulations, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose during the procedure between the groups. Two patients in group S and three in group D complained of injection site soreness after transforaminal epidural steroid injection for a few days, but there was no significant difference in its incidence (P = 0.667). CONCLUSIONS: Deep local anesthesia to reduce procedural pain during transforaminal epidural steroid injection seems to have no significant clinical benefit compared with conventional subcutaneous local anesthesia. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Reduce procedural pain by considering clinical factors of the patient during fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections.Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Understand the potential impact of procedural pain on the performance of transforaminal epidural steroid injections; (2) Distinguish cutaneous nociceptive afferents from nociceptive afferents in muscle; and (3) Explain the factors to reduce procedural pain during fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Self-pressurized air-Q® intubating laryngeal airway versus the LMA® Classic™: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The self-pressurized air-Q® (air-Q SP) intubating laryngeal airway is a relatively new supraglottic airway (SGA) device. The intracuff pressure of air-Q dynamically equilibrates with the airway pressure and adjusts to the patient's pharyngeal and periglottic anatomy, potentially providing improved airway fit and seal. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the clinical performance of air-Q to the LMA® Classic™ SGA. METHODS: Adult patients requiring general anesthesia for elective surgery were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to either air-Q SP or the LMA Classic SGA. Oropharyngeal leak pressure (primary endpoint), success rate, insertion features (insertion time, ease of insertion, requirement for device manipulation), sealing function, gastric insufflation, bronchoscopic view, and oropharyngeal complications at device insertion and following its removal (sore throat, dysphagia, dysphonia) were compared. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) oropharyngeal leak pressure just after insertion was similar in the air-Q SP and LMA [16.8 (4.9) vs 18.6 (5.5) cm H2O, respectively; mean difference, 1.8 cm H2O; 95% CI, -0.5 to 4.2; P = 0.13] and did not differ at ten minutes following device insertion. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] peak inspiratory pressure just after insertion was lower in the air-Q SP (11.0 [10.0-13.0] vs 13.0 [11.0-14.0] cmH2O, median difference, 1.0 cm H2O; 95% CI, 0.0 to 2.0; P = 0.03) but no difference was observed at ten minutes. The median [IQR] insertion time was faster with the air-Q SP (15.9 [13.6-20.3] sec vs 24 [21.2-27.1] sec; median difference, 8.1 sec; 95% CI, 5.6 to 9.9; P < 0.001) and improved bronchoscopic viewing grade were seen with the air-Q SP immediately after insertion (P < 0.001). No differences between the groups were observed with respect to the rate of successful insertion at first attempt, overall insertion success rate, ease of insertion, and complications. CONCLUSIONS: The air-Q SP had similar leak pressures but a faster insertion time and superior bronchoscopic viewing grade when compared with the LMA Classic. The air-Q SP is a suitable alternative to the LMA Classic in adult patients and may be a superior conduit for tracheal intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02206438). Registered 1 August 2014.